Another statement Ruaned…

SINN Fein has called for eBay to stop selling DVDs of Irish Travellers’ bare-knuckle fights. Without a trace of irony, Catriona Ruane stated: “We are against the exploitation of violence in any way… They shouldn’t be selling racist incitement to hatred.” She obviously hasn’t visited Sinn Fein’s online shop in a while…

115 thoughts on “Another statement Ruaned…”

  1. ‘You say that it was “war” – I disagree on the premise that NI never experienced the total dissolution of the social fabric and cohesion of our society that goes with “war” -‘

    Some intellectual masturbation going on here methinks.

  2. MCT.

    Since when were Sinn Fein the majority party within nationalsim?
    For an all island party you have a peculiarly six county way of looking at things.

  3. Thanks Binlid,
    I think!
    I was just showing off and trying to hide the fact that I failed my 11 plus miserably and never went to University. Perhaps I have a chip on my shoulder – must get it sorted!

  4. MCT, nothing wrong with having fun with a bit of purpley prose. Just try and stick to bashing your opponent’s arguments. What’s starts as good humour has a habit online of heading rapidly off down the bowl.

  5. Democratic,
    The points I couldn’t be bothered going through included the dissolution of the unionist govt, soldiers occupying and enforcing the policies of a foreign power, organised armed resistance followed by an internationally recognised ceasefire.
    Just because the british govt didn’t ‘officially’ recognise it as a war does’nt mean it was’nt a war.

  6. Fair enough Binlid,
    But I only claim to speak for myself – not the British government or anyone else – my views on the subject are more elaborate than those 2 lines you speak of suggest – but my typing finger (as that is all I can manage)is already starting to hurt! Ultimately though I stand by my post.

  7. Democratic

    Thanks for your considered response.

    “”Sniper at Work” T-shirts and “Baseball Bat” pens are basically tongue-in-cheek poor-taste glorifications”

    I think I can agree this. Are they on the SF site (I didn’t see them, and I’d be distinctly unimpressed if they were)?

    In honesty though, I don’t like poppies and lilies much either. They both glorify violence along with the sacrifice. Quite, reflective remembrance is much better commemoration of sacrifice and more to my taste than badge wearing. Tradition has a role to play here though.

    I think your position on “war” or “no war” is semantics. There was an armed conflict between the British security forces and the IRA. I agree that the communities were not at war. That’s not a prerequisite for a war.

    “In this regard I cannot accept Republicans assertation that I must acknowledge and respect their right to hero worship in any way – perhaps you are right and this is holding us back – but I cannot see this changing anytime soon”

    I can understand this. I similarly find it impossible to empathise with unionist veneration of RUC men and the British Army. But sooner or later we’re going to have to acknoweldge the genuineness with which the other lot held their views. I am trying to look with unionist eyes. I think many natinoalists are. I think we’re further down the track than you guys on this. Not point scoring, just where I think we are.

    I think perhaps the starting point for you, if it’s a journey you’re interested in exploring, open-minded as to the destination, might be the hunger strikers. I feel that it is unarguable that the courage involved in their sacrifice elevates them beyond notions of criminality. Perhaps you might consider whether you can understand our regard for them.

    Are there equivalent unionist heroes you’d encourage me to consider?

    “I feel that we all have a long way to come before resolution but I do welcome the opportunity to converse with intelligently minded individuals form the other side of the fence like yourself on the subject.”


  8. Hi MCT,
    I think we have reached somewhat of an understanding of each other’s position – this pleases me greatly to see that two people with greatly differing ultimate views can see some common ground for our shared future – Perhaps we’ll all get there yet!
    I have no problem in recognising the courage, resolve and faith in his beliefs of Bobby Sands – he made the ultimate sacrifice in pursuit of his goals – I cannot however condone support for any IRA military activities he may have been involved in as I’m sure you’ll understand. BTW – Bobby Sands was originally from Rathcoole (where I’m from) – my father knew him and his sister quite well they lived in the street behind him and used to swap old comics together – before sectarianism forced him out obviously.
    I personally wouldn’t ask to consider any one person within Unionism or its history but simply to keep an open mind about the quality of people who suscribe to the notion in today’s climate despite what recent news events may suggest to other observers – (see Father Wilson’s remarks on another thread)


    nice touch – take a redner, mct


    Why are you on my case again? That’s blatant DASCRIMANAYSHIN, that is!

    You don’t like the bearded lady thing, right? (or was it something else?) You’ve got to admit it was funny. The Alliance wans can handle themselves admirably (especially when they gang up). I’d say I take much worse than I dish out, but you’re the boss.

    In truth, that’s my fourth admonishment after a ban (which I still consider inexplicable – is there a video review panel?) for critiquing an article by a journalist. I’m a little unsure of my ground on this. I don’t think I play the man, other than generically (Alliance voters are snobby, nuns are holy, and other such outrageous travesties). Gimme an idea of what you’d rather not see on your site.

  10. Democratic

    “I think we have reached somewhat of an understanding of each other’s position – this pleases me greatly to see that two people with greatly differing ultimate views can see some common ground for our shared future – Perhaps we’ll all get there yet!”

    People of goodwill will always reach an understanding. I have great hope for the future. If you’ll forgive the use of Republican dictum, “we’re on the one road”.

    How interesting re Bobby.

    “I personally wouldn’t ask to consider any one person within Unionism or its history but simply to keep an open mind about the quality of people who suscribe to the notion in today’s climate”

    Let me assure you, there are many unionists whom I hold in immense regard. Few in the political sphere alas.

    I just read Father Des’ article. He’s unfairly universal in his criticism of unionists. However, as to the thrust of the article, I have a considerable measure of sympathy for the views expressed – most particularly as regards the obscene dereliciton of duty by our own Church as regards the rights of Catholics in the North. On the conspiracy of silence which allows Ahoghills to happen, I cannot find it in my heart to disagree (save to the extent that he implies that all unionists are complicit). I think few nationalists could. Anybody?

  11. MCT, since you got it in one, I’m puzzled as to why you’re puzzled. I didn’t intend to stem your flow, it was supposed to be just a gentle nudge.

  12. Bare knuckle boxing could be very dangerous indeed but I wonder what many of our grandfathers wore when they used to sort out the odd slight in the street?

    Oh, of course, they used their knuckles because they were too poor to afford gloves!

  13. And another point, maybe, just maybe if we had bare knuckle fights (with referees calling a halt when it gets too tough) there would be less crapp going on all over the world because we could shake hands and go for a pint afterwards. Give me a good controlled punch up (no weapons or knuckle dusters) anyday rather than suicide bombers and the like. DOH!

  14. I have been reading through this thread for the last hour with various various emotions ranging from frustration, anger, dispair and finally some hope.

    Most of the negative emotions were in response to the clash between MCT and Gonzo et al. My position, as someone with a unionist background is unsurprisingly fairly critical of the provisional republican movement and therefore MCT’s robust defence of their violent campaign against my community and it’s subsequent glorification through their tacky online shop.

    The hope has been initiated by Democratic’s considered and well measured posts and reinforced by MCT’s gracious response. This obvious change in tone and increase in respect for other positions is a great illustration of the power of language. Democratic delivered a robust challenge to MCT’s points with an approach that was respectful and earnest. That in turn produced a response in similar tone. Neither moved from their positions but they did open doors to an understanding of each other’s position.

    This power in the use of language is something that I have raised on a previous thread. It is something that our political leaders would do well to learn if they are seriously interested in delivering a society at peace with itself.

    I congratulate both Democratic and MCT for demonstrating this so vividly.

    Moving on, I do need to throw in a couple of challenges myself and perhaps an observation before I close. In my language, I will try to adhere to the standards set by the aforementioned.


    Protestant’s perceived the conflict, (your term), as primarily a violent sectarian campaign directed against them rather than some noble conflict between republicanism and “British security forces”. The body count and the villages/towns targeted for destruction, tend to support this view.

    The list of PIRA “legitimate targets” included the majority of us. In reality anyone that supported the British state was on the list. By definition, all unionists met the criteria. Furthermore, those that republican’s more easily identified as members of the security forces tended to be from our community. Their deaths were felt deeply by us.

    That SF wish to glorify those actions against us, and indeed profit from it, is of course their right. I still struggle a bit with the published objective of unity amongst the people of ireland and this sort of practice.

    I have asked for an explanation of this on a number of previous threads and have yet to get a clear answer. I have suggested cantonisation and isolation of the protestant population is now the policy. Interestingly, I have never had any denial of this proposition.

    MCT has now, on this thread, given some clarity on the issue:

    “republicans have decided to try to create for themselves a de facto statelet within a statelet”

    Any further revelation on the current mindset of the typical SF supporter would be welcome.

Comments are closed.